Tag: racism

Categories
Opinions

Trump’s “shithole” comment is plain old racism

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

The president’s choice of words with regards to immigration contradict the age-old American Dream

On Jan. 11, President Donald Trump was reported to have referred to Haiti, El Salvador and parts of Africa as “shithole countries” during a White House meeting about immigration reform, according to The Guardian. His response came as a reaction to the idea of allowing immigrants from those countries into the United States, according to the same source.

The Internet was quick to erupt with outrage following the horrific statement. Many people, including notable journalists such as Don Lemon and The Daily Show host Trevor Noah are labeling Trump as racist. The comments came as Haiti was preparing to commemorate the hundreds of thousands of lives lost during the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck eight years ago, according to CNN. According to Time magazine, individuals from Haiti have been under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) since the devastating earthquake struck the island back in January 2010. CNN reported that Trump appears to have ignored the fundamental humanitarian purpose of TPS, which allows people to live and work in the United States if their countries are affected by natural disasters, war or any type of political conflict that would prevent citizens from safely returning to their homeland.

Following Trump’s comment, an opinions piece in the Washington Post argued that American news media “has long treated black and brown countries like ‘shitholes.’” The news media in the United States has systematically reported on Haiti and African nations as poverty stricken and disease ridden—and that’s when those countries are even considered worthy of coverage in the first place, according to the same article.

However, I believe the news media did an exceptional job of calling Trump out on his racist comment. Essentially, what the president is asserting is that he doesn’t want to welcome anyone from those countries no matter how qualified they may be, all because of where they come from. A fundamental value of the United States is the American Dream—the idea that it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from, you can still make it there. You don’t have to be rich to be worthy nor do you need a college degree.

Part of what’s important to keep in mind is that, not only was Trump’s comment exceedingly racist, but it’s also inaccurate. According to Vox, 30 per cent of people born in the United States have college degrees whereas 43 per cent of African immigrants have college degrees. Additionally, 10 per cent of white Americans have advanced degrees compared to the 25 per cent of Nigerian Americans who do. These facts completely refute Trump’s ignorant opinion about people from Africa. In my opinion, the fact that Trump seems to believe an entire country should not be welcome in the United States is the textbook definition of racism. You can’t dismiss entire countries whose populations are not white—let alone refer to them as “shitholes”—and not expect to be called a racist.

I believe there have been numerous examples of Trump demonstrating he is indeed racist, despite many people only now starting to realize it. It’s especially appalling that words such as “shithole” are being used to describe entire countries and continents by those in the White House. For years, African immigrants as well as Haitians and Salvadorans have been coming to the United States and bringing up the learning and entrepreneurship rate—thus helping make America a greater nation, according to The New York Times.

Politically speaking, it would also make no sense to exclude parts of the world seeking entry into the United States given that an influx of immigrants will only help better the economy in the long run. In my opinion, Trump’s racist comment is yet another piece of evidence that the United States is being led by a man who applies policies that will “make America white again.”

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin 

Categories
Opinions

The history and inappropriateness of blackface

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

Looking into our province’s relationship with blackface and why it must be condemned

This Halloween, a high school vice-principal in Montreal sparked outrage over his use of blackface for his costume. Jocelyn Roy, the administrator in question, showed up to Collège de Montréal dressed up as Jamaican reggae icon Bob Marley for a Halloween costume parade. This ended up offending many students.

Given that Roy’s use of blackface wasn’t well received by students at his school, he quickly removed both the costume and the face paint. He later apologized for the incident.

There is a long history behind blackface. More than a century ago, Montrealers attended minstrel shows at local theatres for entertainment. People would gather to watch these musical comedy performances, which featured white actors wearing black face paint, according to CBC News. Blackface minstrel shows originally started in the United States, but were common in Quebec from the late 19th century up until the 1950s, according to the same source. Historically speaking, blackface was born from discrimination against black people and against integrating actors of colour on stage.

Blackface is truly intertwined with Canadian history. According to CBC News, Calixa Lavallée, the composer of the Canadian national anthem, was a member of a blackface troupe that toured North America for several years. According to Quebec’s Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales, Montreal’s oldest permanent theatre, the Theatre Royal, was home to multiple successful minstrel shows known at the time as “Soirées éthiopiennes.”

According to CBC News, Blackface minstrel shows never failed to sell out theatres—even after they fell out of fashion among professional theatre troupes. In the 1920s, these minstrel shows experienced a revival within several Montreal communities since they were considered cultural events for white audiences.

Ever since blackface first emerged as a theatrical art form, it has ridiculed people of colour. White performers portrayed slaves and free blacks, while using insulting and degrading stereotypes about black people. Examples of these include the aggressive man with his lustful eye on white women or the freed slave who couldn’t pronounce his words correctly but aspired to be part of high society, according to Esquire. All in all, blackface humiliates black people, but it also desensitizes white audiences to the hidden horrors of slavery.

I believe Quebec has a bad reputation surrounding racism. A book that explores Quebec’s relationship with anti-black racism and provides more insight on the issue is Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada From Slavery to the Present by Robyn Maynard. I believe instances of blackface and general anti-blackness are still common here, given that the province is renowned for being rather inconsiderate towards unfamiliar races and ethnicities. An example is Quebec’s problem with racial profiling. Part of the blame might also be directed towards the French-Canadian media and their lack of attention towards the insensitivity of using blackface. As recently as 2015, a Quebec actor wore blackface to portray hockey player P.K. Subban in a comedy sketch, according to The Globe and Mail.

Despite its comedic intent, the use of blackface is blatantly racist and disrespectful towards black people. Even though it is nearly 2018, many people all over the world still think it’s acceptable to paint their skin a darker colour while pretending to be a different race. Race relations in North America still remain fragile, after several killings of black men and women by police officers in the United States and Canada’s own alarmingly high number of black prisoners, according to the Toronto Star. Nowadays, the use of blackface is highly frowned upon. It does not celebrate, honour nor pay homage to any culture or ethnicity.

Overall, I believe it’s important that people, not only in Canada but also around the world, become more conscious of blackface, because it is just part of the larger issue of anti-black racism.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
News

Thousands gather to protest against racism

Thousands gathered in downtown Montreal for an anti-racism protest on Nov. 12. Photo by Mackenzie Lad

Three-hour demonstration, endorsed by 162 organizations, tackled issues surrounding Palestine and immigration

Several hundred protesters gathered in downtown Montreal on Sunday, Nov. 12 to protest against hatred and systemic racism. The demonstration began with a number of speeches from event organizers at Place Émilie-Gamelin, outside the Berri-UQAM metro station, before protesters took to the streets.

Over the next three hours, protesters travelled through the Plateau-Mont-Royal borough and down Sherbrooke Street, towards Concordia’s downtown campus.

“We are here to denounce capitalism and austerity,” cried out one of the event’s organizer using a megaphone. “We are here to show we care about non-status people being deported despite Montreal being declared a sanctuary city.”

According to the Montreal Gazette, a video emerged on social media the night before the demonstration showing an anonymous group vandalizing a statue of Sir John A. MacDonald at Place du Canada.

Although the anonymous group identified themselves as “anti-colonial anti-racists” in the video description, they denied being affiliated with the demonstration organizers.

MacDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, has become a controversial figure in recent years for his role in creating the residential school system. The Assembly of First Nations chief Perry Bellegarde recently supported efforts to have MacDonald’s name removed from schools and monuments, according to the Toronto Star.

Protesters brandished signs with anti-xenophobic and anti-racist slogans. Photo by Mackenzie Lad

As they marched, protesters brandished signs with anti-xenophobic slogans on them, ranging from “Queers Against White Supremacy” and “Racism is Not Welcome Here” to “Racists Suck In Bed.” One protester held a sign reading, “If You Like Bill 62, Then Fuck You,” a reference to the controversial piece of Quebec legislation.

Passed in October, the provincial legislation bans people from giving or receiving public services while their face is covered. The bill, which will take effect sometime before July 2018, according to Global News, would require Muslim women, among others, to remove their face veils to identify themselves when boarding public transportation, and would ban public workers, such as doctors and teachers, from covering their faces at work. During a press conference on Oct. 18, Montreal’s mayor-elect Valérie Plante said that, while she agrees with the principle of the law, she believes the Quebec government should do “crucial homework to make sure that it is applicable to the realities of Montreal.”

Palestinian flags were also popular among protesters, who, throughout the march, chanted “from Montreal to Palestine, occupation is a crime.”

“I can’t believe racism is even something we have to protest,” said Julia Morian, a protestor at the event. “I’m protesting because [anti-racism] should be a very popular belief.”

One hundred and sixty-two organizations, including the Concordia Student Union and the Quebec Public Interest Research Group at Concordia, endorsed the march by signing a call to action condemning “the rise of racist hate speech in Quebec.” The call to action asked all groups that signed to denounce capitalism and austerity, oppose racism and participate in the march.

The call to action also cited recent political events, such as the election of President Donald Trump and the January 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting, as evidence of a rise in racism and hate crimes.

One of the groups present at the protest was Fightback Canada, a self-described Marxist journal and advocacy group. Farshad Acadian, an organizer and editor for Fightback, said the group was present at the protest and signed the call to action.

“We’re a journal with socialist analysis, but we’re also an organizing tool,” Acadian explained. “We want to help students understand issues and connect and fight back. This [protest] is fighting back.”

Another organization that signed the call to action was the Réseau des lesbiennes du Québec (RLQ), an advocacy group focused on the rights and equality of lesbians. For RLQ member Jessie Boideleau, the reason to protest was simple.

“We’re here because diversity should be supremacy.”

Photos by Mackenzie Lad

Categories
Opinions

Stepping in and speaking out against racism

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin.

A student’s experience witnessing a racist altercation on Concordia’s shuttle bus

I am a third-year student at Concordia. In all my time at this institution, I had never witnessed a racist altercation. That changed on Oct. 23.

I was on the Concordia shuttle bus heading to the downtown campus when I overheard a conversation between a white male student and a black male student. The white student told his peer that he wouldn’t excel at teaching a certain subject because he is black. The white student went on to state that certain things should preferably be taught by white people instead of black people.

I was completely shocked by the comment. The black student, a Concordia Stingers player based on his attire, tried to calmly explain to his fellow teammate that the comment was offensive, racist and untrue. Not only did the white student deny that his comment was racist, he also became verbally aggressive, calling his teammate various vulgar names.

As a witness, I was extremely taken aback by this situation. Not only was I shocked that something like this would happen in an arguably progressive society, but that it happened on the school bus. Shouldn’t the school bus be a safe and comfortable space for all students? We all come to school for the same reasons—to get an education. In this day and age, especially at a school as culturally diverse as Concordia, I would assume students would be safe from this type of behaviour.

Following the incident, I continued to feel unsettled and angry that this happened, and was frustrated with myself for not stepping in when I had the chance. I noticed a few other students around me looked uncomfortable, but not enough for them to react apparently. Everyone simply sat quietly in their seat.

Personally, the fact that the white student had become loud and aggressive stopped me from speaking up. I was afraid of angering him and making the situation worse, as well as putting myself in a compromising position.
The situation made me wonder: Why did the white student feel he had the right to talk down to his peer and question his abilities? The fact that the white student would not acknowledge that his comment was racist is an even bigger issue. The presence of this closed mindset in our generation has deeply affected me. Needless to say, the colour of a person’s skin or where they come from should not make them inferior nor superior to anyone else.

Truthfully, while the white student’s comment was appalling, the reality is that there were many people at fault in this situation. Every Concordia student on that bus played a very important role, myself included. The fact that none of us stood up for the young man or spoke up against the blatant racism is completely wrong. I thought our generation was better than that.

By pretending we did not hear the racist comment, by downplaying what the white student said, by telling ourselves that the situation didn’t concern us, each one of us on that bus reinforced the notion that this type of behaviour is normal. This lack of response desensitizes us to this kind of behaviour, and that is unacceptable. Our apathy must end. The only way we can end racism is by educating each other through intervention and by sharing our stories.
We have to start with ourselves and make our school the best place it can be for every student and faculty member. If every student on the bus that day had spoken up, perhaps the white student would have changed his mindset and taken the situation seriously.

Concordia prides itself on being open and safe, and it should be. Everyone should feel comfortable and safe at school. I hope that, by sharing my story, I have helped raise awareness about racism on campus and the importance of intervening when something like this occurs. Witnessing this event truly opened my eyes to the problem of racism. From now on, I plan to intervene and stand up against this intolerable behaviour.

It only takes one person to start a chain reaction of positive change. If this piece helped open the eyes of just one student to this issue, then it’s a step in the right direction.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Categories
News

Concordia students react to McGill union vote

Israel on Campus and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights executives comment on the decision not to ratify McGill student Noah Lew. Photo by Kirubel Mehari

Student group executives comment on decision not to ratify McGill university student Noah Lew

McGill University launched an investigation on Oct. 27 after one of its students, Noah Lew, claimed he was targeted for being Jewish. In a message posted on his Facebook page on Oct. 24, Lew wrote that he was “blocked from participating in student government because of [his] Jewish identity and [his]affiliations with Jewish organizations.”

Lew, a member of the board of directors of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU)—the university’s student union—explained in his Facebook post that “over 100 students” opposed his assent as a director at the SSMU general assembly on Oct. 23.

The McGill student said the reason for the opposition was his support for the ratification of a decision by the SSMU judicial board that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel violated the SSMU constitution.

“I think it’s very sad that a person is discriminated [against] because of his cultural or religious identity,” Amina Chemssy, the Israel on Campus (IOC) Concordia president, told The Concordian.

The BDS movement calls for banks, local councils and other institutions “to withdraw investments from all Israeli companies,” according to the movement’s official website. The movement also calls on governments to “fulfill their legal obligation to hold Israel to account by ending military trade [and] free-trade agreements” and for people and organizations to “withdraw support for Israel and Israeli and international companies that are involved in the violation of Palestinian human rights.”

In December 2014, Concordia Student Union (CSU) members voted in favour of endorsing the BDS movement against Israel. While the CSU’s membership totals approximately 35,000 undergraduate students, only 2,343 students cast a vote.

Following the vote, Concordia president Alan Shepard wrote that the “result of the vote [was independent] of the university.”

Chemssy—a friend of Lew—and her colleague, IOC Concordia vice-president of finance Jonathan Mamane, have been following the situation at McGill closely.

Mamane, who was part of the “Vote no to BDS” campaign at Concordia in 2014, said he was not surprised Lew was not ratified.

At IOC Concordia meetings following the SSMU general assembly’s decision not to ratify Lew, Chemssy said people were shocked. “We thought Concordia was the most turbulent [of the two] campuses,” admitted Chemssy, who ran for an elected position in the March 2017 CSU elections.

“We thought, ‘Oh my God, this is happening next door. How are we supposed to react now?’” she said. According to Chemssy, she and IOC McGill president Grace Miller-Day are currently planning a “fun and non-political” event to bring people from both universities together.

According to Mamane, “there isn’t much of a working relationship” at the moment between IOC Concordia and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) Concordia—which supported the 2014 BDS vote. “However, some of us interact and engage other members in civil dialogue,” Mamane said.

The Concordian reached out to SPHR president Mustafa Bokesmati who wrote in a text message that his organization “would like to avoid discussing [the situation at McGill] publicly.”

“We have tried to do things with some organizations in the past and I’ll be honest with you, it doesn’t usually work out,” Mamane said.

“There are values on both sides and, if both groups can’t agree to some things, then it doesn’t end up working out so well and sometimes it’s better to just not do things together,” Mamane told The Concordian.

Photo by Kirubel Mehari

A clarification has been added to this article regarding how many CSU members voted in favour of endorsing the BDS movement. The Concordian regrets the misunderstanding.

Categories
Opinions

Why kneeling speaks louder than words

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth.

Colin Kaepernick’s protest has emphasized the debate on freedom of expression

Colin Kaepernick, an American football quarterback, took the country by storm after kneeling during the anthem at a National Football League (NFL) game in September 2016. His reasons for doing so weren’t out of spite or insult, but rather to protest against the continued violence and injustice towards people of colour in the United States.

Kaepernick’s form of protest spread as other athletes followed his example, even branching off into other sports, such as basketball. Unfortunately, not everyone approved of this type of protest. U.S. President Donald Trump, for one, reacted harshly, calling a player who kneels during the anthem a “son of a bitch,” according to The Guardian. Furthermore, Trump said athletes who kneel or show any “disrespect” to the national anthem should be fired, according to CNN. His words sparked protest and shock throughout the sports world. Across the different leagues in America, athletes voiced their contempt towards President Trump. Notable examples include the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball player Lebron James, who spoke out against Trump, calling him a “bum” on Twitter.

In light of Trump’s comments, the Golden State Warriors basketball team refused an invitation from the president to visit the White House. Even football player Tom Brady, a close friend of Trump’s, sided against him, calling his words “divisive,” according to CNN.

President Trump has twisted a protest against racism into a matter of disrespecting the very essence of American pride. This isn’t the first time Trump has been insensitive towards issues of race, as demonstrated by his poor handling of the events during the Charlottesville riot. Yet with all his claims of others disrespecting the flag, according to the Washington Post, on Oct. 12, Trump made a joke during a bugle call, which is a military tradition that consists of raising the flag to show respect.

Although Trump claims Kaepernick’s protest is an instance of disrespect towards the American flag, it is bringing up the topic of the right to freedom of expression. When Kaepernick knelt in protest, he didn’t intend to ridicule the sport or the NFL, nor did he want to insult the symbolic or literal importance of the American flag. He wanted to bring awareness to a critical issue dividing Americans. He was protesting against issues of racial violence and police brutality—acts that are happening in America.

Mike Evans, a wide receiver for the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, responded to Trump’s actions, saying in an interview with CTV News: “You know people say it’s unpatriotic, but it’s unpatriotic of the president to disrespect our rights.”

White House officials claimed they stood by Trump’s statement, and that it is always appropriate for the head of the nation to defend the flag. I was shocked when I heard the president justify his words by claiming he was protecting the American flag. I was surprised considering the flag was not the focus of the national anthem protests. What is under fire here are people’s constitutional rights.

As Kyries Hebert, a linebacker for the Montreal Alouettes, explained during an interview with CTV, whether it’s fighting for their country or fighting for a cause, people do not fight just to protect a flag. Although it’s an important symbol for any country or cause, people fight to defend and respect the constitution as well as the people it protects.
American athletes are not alone in protesting during the anthem. They’re being joined by their fellow athletes in the Canadian Football League, including players for the Calgary Stampeders and the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Kaepernick’s and other athletes’ acts of protest have brought attention to a critical issue in America. Despite Trump’s comments, athletes in the United States, and even Canada, haven’t backed down. If anything, the actions to date have served only to reinforce the players’ resolve and unite them on issues of racial injustice and constitutional rights.

Regardless of race or nationality, we are all human. So long as we do not inflict harm on others, we each have the right to say our own piece. However, in today’s society, our words may no longer be enough. If anything, our actions have more power than ever before. As Kaepernick and many others have shown, we must use our actions responsibly—there is no telling how much of an impact they can have in a world where words may no longer be enough.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth 

Categories
News

Anti-black assimilation in academia

Concordia alumna and BIPOC Committee bring attention to academic racism

Concordia University alumna Sophia Sahrane has had more than enough first-hand experiences with academic racism. Her account is only one of many, highlighting a bigger problem—the anti-black rhetoric ingrained in university education across North America.

How committed is Concordia to ensuring a positive university experience for students of colour? According to Sahrane, not very. Until she hosted an orientation event earlier this month featuring Angela Davis in conversation with Robyn Maynard (both black activists, feminists, educators and authors), Sahrane said she had never seen that many black people in the same space at Concordia.

Furthermore, the event featured an unofficial priority seating policy for anyone who was black, Indigenous or a person of colour (BIPOC), despite the objection of several CSU executives.

“The [priority seating] was important because it recognized that universities were not built for us, our experiences, our realities, our identities,” Sahrane said. “We have been pushed to the margins of academia, but in this moment, we had a place in this academic space and it was in the front row.”

According to Sahrane, the proposal for BIPOC priority seating was initially made by Leyla Sutherland, the Concordia Student Union’s student life coordinator, and the rest of the CSU orientation team, but was overruled by other CSU executives before the event.

Sutherland and the orientation team pursued Angela Davis as a guest speaker and originally brought up the priority seating policy after consulting with the BIPOC Committee—a student group founded last year by Sahrane herself when she was a CSU executive.

“Universities are not built to welcome racialized people, but student movements, associations and spaces aren’t built for it either,” Sahrane said. “I was lucky enough to occupy a position of privilege within the community, so I decided to create the BIPOC Committee in an attempt to balance out the lack of resources for BIPOC folk.”

While she wanted to ensure that racialized students could have a voice at Concordia, Sahrane said attempting to end institutionalized racism in universities is a much loftier goal. However, she said she believes the creation of a black studies program at Concordia would be a step in the right direction.

“Course curriculum at Concordia doesn’t even scratch the surface of discussing BIPOC individuals’ roles and contribution in history, politics or society,” Sahrane said, referring to her experience in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Throughout her four years of study at Concordia, Sahrane was never taught by a black professor. “Even black history and black literature is taught by white people,” she said.

According to Sahrane, she and many other Concordia students and scholars have advocated for the creation of a black studies program, but have been met with a severe lack of action by the university.

Concordia spokesperson Mary-Jo Barr said that while there are many conversations happening on campus about diversity issues in course curriculum, “at this point, nothing specific has been proposed” regarding a black studies program.

Despite the lack of progress, Sahrane said a black studies program would drastically alter a black student’s university experience.

“I don’t think assimilating or integrating black students within a white-dominant framework will ever work,” Sahrane said. “We should make sure that the black experience [is] never forgotten or dismissed within existing academic structures.”

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

The inconvenient truth about white people and racism

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

Munroe Bergdorf and the L’Oréal controversy highlights a deeper, systemic problem

“I’m not racist. I don’t even see colour. Plus, I have a ton of black friends.”

These are common excuses most white people choose to reiterate whenever the heavy topic of racism arises in conversations. Regardless of the excuses, there is a sense of discomfort that white people feel when discussing racism. It’s a state that’s being labeled as white fragility.

According to the Huffington Post, Dr. Robin DiAngelo, a social justice educator, created the term to describe a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defense moves.”

Some of these moves include fear, guilt, anger, silence and defensiveness. A recent example of white fragility can be seen through the L’Oréal controversy. L’Oréal hired their first black transgender model Munroe Bergdorf, but she was recently fired because of the comments she made condemning racism in response to the events in Charlottesville, Va.

In a now-deleted Facebook post, Bergdorf said: “Honestly, I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes, ALL white people. Because most of ya’ll don’t even realize or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, bloods and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism […] ”

After this post received a lot of negative attention, L’Oréal fired Bergdorf. In a statement, the company said they support diversity and tolerance towards all people—regardless of their race, background, gender and religion. The company stated: “We believe that the recent comments by Munroe Bergdorf are at odds with those values, and as such, we have taken the decision to end the partnership with her.” Bergdorf’s comments can be understood to mean all white people are inherently racist, which can be considered promoting a negative view of a certain race—ultimately going against L’Oréal’s policy.

In an article in The Guardian, Katherine Craig, a human rights lawyer and social change consultant, wrote: “If you grow up in a racist society, through no fault of your own, some of that racism is bound to stick subconsciously. It’s an unconscious conspiracy in which we are all complicit, unless we fight it.”

In a BBC interview, Bergdorf elaborated on her comments by saying that white people are socialized to be racist, just as men are socialized to be sexist. She emphasized the idea that it is each person’s responsibility to “unlearn” that socialization.

Bergdorf and Craig make similar points: white people can be inherently racist, not because they choose to be, but because they are born into a world that places their lives and wishes above everyone else’s. When we grow up, we are influenced by everything around us and the argument that all white people can be intrinsically racist is a plausible one. Whiteness has long been considered a positive thing, while darkness a negative thing. If one grows up seeing only white dolls and white actors on TV, it’s possible they might grow up with the idea that their race is better, prettier and superior to others. If that’s what our society is promoting, why wouldn’t someone unconsciously believe that?

Speaking from my own experience, growing up enthusiastically following white characters in TV and pop culture, I really believed that my brown skin made me inferior to white people. I barely saw representation of people of colour, which led me to internalize the racism I was surrounded by. If that was my reaction to these messages as someone who isn’t white, isn’t it possible that white people can feel superior due to the same exposure?

Bergdorf explained in the same BBC interview, “white people need to get over the fact that yes, [this socialization is] a really uncomfortable and inconvenient truth. Get over that discomfort. Think about how it makes us feel.”

Bergdorf’s comments were racially charged, but she was calling out white people for their racism. If you find that offensive then you are part of the problem. When Bergdorf said, “Yes, all white people,” she isn’t wrong—white people inherently benefit from the fruits of a society built on white privilege. Systemic racism, which emphasizes how white privilege is built into every level of society—like education, health care, criminal justice and housing—and will always favour white people over people of colour.

White people don’t really have to worry about being victims of violence by law enforcement. No one will ever question how you got a job—it’s assumed you were qualified and right for it. You are able to speak about a certain subject without being expected to represent your entire race. You will never walk with the weight of your skin colour bearing heavy on your shoulders.

A lot of people are arguing if the comments made by Bergdorf were made about black people, they would be considered racist. In my opinion, Bergdorf’s comments shouldn’t be labeled as such.

Racism is more complex and powerful than just discrimination and a feeling of superiority. Sure, a person of colour can feel superior to and discriminate against a white person, which isn’t right. But those are individual acts—not systemic. Racism is ultimately the result of power and prejudice. People of colour do not hold any power against white people—therefore they will never be able to systematically oppress them.

As a white person, you can walk away from prejudice. People of colour cannot walk away from racism. Wherever people of colour go, racism is an inherent part of the society we live in. We can change our hairstyles, our clothing and our mannerisms—but we cannot change the colour of our skin.

Bergdorf’s comments were harsh, yes. But they hold a grain of truth. The response it has garnered is a prime example of white fragility and white privilege. It’s a response to the inconvenient truth. In the same BBC interview, Bergdorf said, “with white privilege, if you are not actually dismantling racism, if you are not going to pull people up from the bottom of the pyramid to the top, then you are participating and benefitting from racism.”

When white people feel defensive or uncomfortable during a conversation about racism, they should ask themselves why they feel that way. What they don’t realize, or refuse to acknowledge, is that their whiteness is a privilege—and that privilege puts people of colour beneath them. But this isn’t to say white people will never be able to help people of colour, combat racism or dispel their own negative ideas about other races.

As Craig explained, “any white person who is serious about racial equality has to be anti-racist. This requires us to actively acknowledge our privilege, because that privilege—even though we never asked for it—is the very cause of the inequity suffered by others […] We have a choice: be offended, or be part of the solution.”

Graphic by ZeZe Le Lin

Categories
Opinions

Are we preserving history or honouring hate?

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

A pedestal is no place for a Confederate symbol, and taking them down won’t erase the past

An increasing number of symbols commemorating Confederate “heroes” have been taken down throughout the United States and Canada, including here in Montreal. A plaque hanging on a wall outside the Hudson’s Bay department store on Ste-Catherine Street honouring Jefferson Davis was taken down on Aug. 15. Davis was the president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865, and he briefly lived in Montreal with his family after being released from prison in 1867.

The recent violent protest in Charlottesville, Va., encouraged even more people and organizations to remove plaques, statues and monuments that pay homage to important actors of the Confederacy. On Aug. 12, white supremacists and neo-Nazis rallied in Charlottesville to condemn a proposal to remove a statue of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee. A woman was struck and killed by a car that drove through the crowd of anti-racism counter-protesters who had turned up at the rally.

Though tensions around Confederate symbols aren’t a new phenomenon, some argue that taking down such signs threaten the preservation of history. For hundreds of years, the KKK and other white supremacist groups have used various symbols as emblems of their far-right ideologies. The Confederate flag is especially controversial because it has become a symbol of oppression and hatred of black people and other non-whites. Waving the flag is often interpreted as blatant racism in North America.

Though some argue Confederate symbols represent pride in the southern United States, they inarguably carry a heavy burden. For many, the Confederate flag is a reminder of black men, women and children being dragged off public transportation, beaten to death, locked up on unfounded rumours and assumptions and killed for defending basic civil rights.

Statues, plaques and monuments are intended to honour people who have positively contributed to society’s growth and freedom. Davis, for his part, owned hundreds of slaves and led a movement that fought against their emancipation. So, if public officials want to lessen racial tensions and reconcile with citizens of different cultures and races, they must not tolerate public displays that glorify the very people who went to war to maintain slavery and other oppressive systems.

Those who fear history will be erased by removing Confederate emblems shouldn’t worry.

Many have tried to suppress dark parts of North American history, yet they endure. Davis and his Confederate friends will always be part of our history, but they have no place on pedestals. No one has forgotten about Hitler, right? Yet, even naming a garbage dump “Adolf Hitler” was deemed scandalous and inappropriate by Oregonians in the 80s.

Closer to home, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario recently announced that they want to remove John A. Macdonald’s name from their school buildings so that Indigenous children won’t have to attend schools named after an individual who played a key role in developing residential schools and destroying Indigenous culture.

Taking down honourific plaques, statues and flags simply shows solidarity and inclusion towards ethnic groups who have been chronically oppressed and discriminated against throughout history. The goal is not to erase our past, but to reclaim a history which has been “whitewashed” for far too many years. History books are filled with one-sided stories of white heroes protecting their people from evil “savages.”

Cruelty and injustice have been excused for centuries. If dozens of government buildings and plaques have to be renamed and removed to begin righting those wrongs, then so be it.

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

It’s all violence, and it’s all wrong

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth.

Recognizing that sexualized violence against women of colour is an unacknowledged crime

Andrea J. Ritchie is a lawyer whose speciality is police misconduct. In her 2017 book, Invisible No More: Police Violence Against Black Women and Women of Colour, she reveals that there are no clear statistics on the violence perpetrated by police against women of colour in the United States. “Although national data show more black men are killed at higher rates than women,” Ritchie writes, “those numbers don’t tell the whole story […] There are no numbers counting police rape or police sexual harassment or unlawful strip searches.”

Women of colour face incidents of police violence in statistically smaller numbers than men of colour, but they are targeted in a particular way. According to the Huffington Post, in 2015, a black woman named Charnesia Corley was stopped by Texas police for allegedly running a stop sign. The officers who stopped her said they smelled marijuana in her car, which, in Texas, is grounds for a cavity search.

Corley said she “felt raped” after the officers publicly searched her vagina for 11 minutes. Her lawyer, Samuel Cammack III, said a police officer “body slammed Miss Corley, stuck her head underneath the vehicle and completely pulled her pants off, leaving her naked and exposed in that Texaco parking lot.”

The officers involved in Corley’s case were charged with “official oppression,” but those charges were later dropped. Corley is currently pursuing a civil case against them, according to the same article. This case is an example of how police violence against women of colour often takes on a sexualized tone.

The lack of statistics available on sexualized police violence seems to point to the conclusion that sexual violence against women is not considered a form of police violence in American society. In my opinion, this lack of information is to be expected in a society that, as a whole, doesn’t take sexual violence, especially against women of colour, as seriously as it should.

Here in Canada, according to Sexual Assault and Rape Statistics Canada, only six out of every 100 sexual assaults are reported to the police, suggesting that many victims don’t trust police or the judicial system. If the government doesn’t even consider it necessary to categorize these actions as violence and gather statistics on them, should we be surprised that they fail to press charges against the officers accused of committing them?

This case reminds me of a situation very far north of Texas, in Val d’Or, Que. In 2016, the Crown decided not to convict six police officers accused of sexual misconduct against a number of Indigenous women. According to the CBC, there were 37 complaints filed against local police by members of the community, including sexual harassment and rape. As with Corley’s case, this situation involved a specific type of police violence, one that is both sexualized and racialized.

These cases demonstrate that women of colour are often the victims of not only violence but a dehumanizing form of sexual violence. Both Corley’s and the Val d’Or cases reinforce the notion that sexual violence is not really considered violence in North American society, and that public officials still fail to be properly reprimanded for the disgusting acts they commit.

Graphics by Alexa Hawksworth

Categories
Opinions

Don’t just accommodate cultures–celebrate them

Graphic by Florence Y

Islamophobic outburst at Peel District School Board meeting signifies a deeper problem

I grew up in a part of Toronto where being white meant you were part of an ethnic minority. From the first day of kindergarten until I moved away in grade 11, my peer group was wonderfully diverse. Attending schools where religious and cultural differences were celebrated—not just accommodated—was a positive and eye-opening experience. Every group was recognized and respected for their beliefs, which created a comfortable and constructive environment.

So, when I heard people were literally ripping up religious texts at a school board meeting in Ontario in protest of religious tolerance, I was scratching my head in confusion. The Peel District School Board (PDSB) meeting on March 22 was attended by 80 individuals who were afraid of the board’s decision to allow Muslim students to write their own sermons for their Friday prayers.

To put this outburst into context, the PDSB has allowed Muslim students to pray every Friday in school spaces for 20 years, according to CBC News. The prayers are monitored by a Muslim teacher and, until the recent change allowing students to prepare their own materials, students used six pre-written sermons.

The intensity of the resistance to students preparing their own sermons is shocking. A petition calling for the end of religious accommodation in schools in the Peel region has received approximately 6,135 signatures so far, according to the petition’s website. Started by a group called Religion out of Public Schools, the petition states religious accommodation will lead to “unintentional intolerance” and “unsolicited exposure to religion.” It is an odd choice to be intentionally intolerant in an attempt to avoid the risk of “unintentional intolerance.” What’s even stranger is to argue that being exposed to another religion can have negative effects.

Respecting diversity and allowing different cultural practices to take place around you should never be seen as negative. Inclusion creates a holistic environment—ignorance creates hostility towards misunderstood groups. The hate broiling in the Peel region is a result of not blissful ignorance, but of fearful ignorance.

According to Global News, a 2016 poll found 54 per cent of Canadians viewed Islam “unfavourably.” Watching this hate gain support makes it impossible to overlook the ignorance present in the public’s view of the Islamic faith. Some of the Islamophobic comments made during the school board meeting were about Shariah law and the “Islamic indoctrination of children,” according to CBC News. None of these arguments are rational, and are only defendable when there is a significant lack of awareness about another group.

The group Religion out of Public Schools argues religious accommodation is too expensive for schools to incorporate. What isn’t clear to me is whether they consider derailing board meetings and necessitating police intervention not to be costly to the school board. Also, the group seems to forget that religious accommodation has been taking place in Peel district schools for over 15 years.

The best way to move forward from these sentiments is to address the underlying issue. It’s a big challenge to get someone to change their opinion, but it is easy to create an environment in which people can no longer hold irrational views.

Categories
Opinions

The presence of xenophobia in Canada

Graphic by Thom Bell

CBC’s Radio-Canada’s new poll shows that Canadians aren’t as accepting as they seem

In February, a poll done by CBC’s Radio-Canada asked Canadians about their stance on a series of issues, specifically about populism and xenophobia. The results revealed that our so-called far and wide land that is “free” is not as hospitable as one may think.

Out of 2,513 Canadians surveyed for this poll—1,024 of whom were from Quebec—74 per cent of respondents answered they would “very” or “somewhat” welcome the act of screening immigrants on their values to determine if they coincide with those of Canadians.

Sixty per cent of Canadians believe refugees are great additions to our society, and 83 per cent feel they enhance our cultural diversity. However, when asked again if Canadians would be open to enforcing a Muslim ban, a quarter of them answered they would “strongly” or “somewhat” accept such a motion.

Is this really shocking? No, it shouldn’t be. Realistically speaking, as much as we would like to deny these discomforting revelations and promote that we are the overly-polite nation that accepts everyone, it’s time to face reality. Canadians are scared, Canadians are judgemental and Canadians, just like everyone else, are easily influenced. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Canada is very much reflecting xenophobic characteristics when those characteristics are so prominent in today’s news.

In another survey done by the Angus Reid Institute (ARI) in 2014, Quebec’s results were just as negative. The survey, conducted with the help of The Province, a branch of the Postmedia Network, the Laurier Institution and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, asked Canadians about their views on radicalization and homegrown terrorism. When it came to questions about whether people were supportive of religious symbols or religious clothing in public, Quebec scored the lowest for all Muslim symbols, such as the niqab and the hijab. The crucifix was the most accepted symbol, nationally.

It’s only human nature these views seep into our consciousness. We absorb what we are surrounded by. We live in a world saturated with overly-dramatic and mostly-negative media and we are instinctively accustomed to form likes and dislikes through personal experiences with particular people. We are drawn to what is familiar rather than unknown. Hence, our biases and escalated fear.

Take, for example, the rise of hate crimes in Canada. According to Mélanie Lajoie, Montreal police spokesperson, in Montreal alone, 81 hate crimes were reported in 2013, 89 in 2014, 112 in 2015, and we closed off 2016 with 137. Furthermore, entering the new year, 14 hate crimes were reported just after the Quebec City mosque shooting, already a 10th of last year’s total.

Sadly, even our nation’s leaders seem to be in the same boat. Racing to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, exhibiting Trump-like qualities, Kellie Leitch has proposed a method of screening newcomers to Canada, in order to make sure foreigners’ values reflect those of Canadians. On her campaign’s website are the values: equal opportunity, hard work, helping others, generosity, freedom and tolerance.

Insinuating these values only belong to Canada, and not to other nations, is insulting. Leitch, as well as her long-lost twin, Trump, seem to have a strategized method of targeting minorities, particularly Muslims, who are already marginalized and feared for no reason. They instill fear and anger into their supporters. Knowing that people’s emotions are sometimes stronger than common sense, the tactic works, and an increase in xenophobia ensues.

Does this mean we’re doomed? Not at all. Luckily, these sentiments can change, and it is up to us to educate ourselves and challenge in how we see and treat different cultures, religions and ethnicities. We can then feel confident in being known as a country for its inclusiveness, hospitable nature and multiculturalism. When we surround ourselves with different types of people, experiences and environments, we not only develop tolerance, but we develop further knowledge of the world as a whole.

It is not too late for Canadians to take a step in the right direction, and to learn, most importantly, to live with one another and appreciate our differences.

Exit mobile version